Simon represents plaintiffs and defendants in all courts and tribunals. His experience covers the full range of civil disputes including claims relating to contracts, torts, property, trusts, companies, professional obligations, administrative decisions, insolvency, tax and human rights. As well as arguing cases in court, Simon is very experienced at representing clients in negotiations and at mediations and judicial settlement conferences. Simon is an author for Thomson Reuters on civil procedure.

Significant cases include:

Waller v Davies (2005) in which Simon acted for a large group of mortgagees in the High Court and Court of Appeal and successfully resisted the plaintiff’s claim that the mortgages should be declared invalid.

Dustin v Weathertight Homes Resolution Service (2006) in which Simon acted for an architectural designer who was a defendant to a leaky building claim in the Weathertight Homes Tribunal. Simon brought an application for judicial review of the Tribunal and persuaded the High Court judge that the approach to the limitation period taken by another High Court judge in an earlier case was wrong.

Dewdrop Properties Limited v Zane Grey Resort Ltd (2006) in which Simon acted for the plaintiff in obtaining and urgent interim injunction to prevent the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s management of a resort in the Bay of Islands.

Hook v Gulf Harbour (2007) in which Simon acted for the plaintiff in a complicated multi-party claim under the Commerce Act.

Bovaird v J (2008) in which Simon acted for a student who had been expelled from school. Simon brought judicial review on behalf of his client and obtained orders quashing the decisions to suspend and expel the student. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.

Hills v Public Trust (2010) in which Simon successfully defended a trustee of a family trust who was sued for alleged breach of trust.

FB Duvall Limited v CIR (2011) in which Simon acted for a taxpayer in successfully judicially reviewing the refusal of the CIR to accept a late objection.

Brooks v Clyne & Bennie (1988)Ltd (2013) in which Simon succeeded in arguing that a bankruptcy adjudication could be annulled under s 309 (1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 2006 even though the bankruptcy had already been annulled under s 309(1)(b). There was no precedent for this finding.

Body Corporate 338356 v Endean (2013) in which Simon obtained defendant’s summary judgment to extract his client from a large and complicated leaky apartment block claim.

A v Hutchinson (2014) in which Simon acted for a disabled student who had been excluded from Green Bay High School. The decisions to suspend and exclude the student were quashed on judicial review.

Russell v CIR (2014) in which Simon persuaded the court to grant interim orders preventing the CIR from bringing bankruptcy proceedings against the applicant pending the outcome of a judicial review of the CIR’s refusal to accept a proposal to pay a $400 million tax bill by instalments.

Sensible Sentencing Group Trust v Human Rights Review Tribunal (2014) in which Simon acted for the Director of Human Rights Proceedings in the High Court and Court of Appeal in the Director’s successful application to strike out the SST’s application for judicial review. Simon had acted for the Director in the Human Rights Review Tribunal in obtaining interim orders in the context of Privacy Act proceedings prohibiting publication of the aggrieved individual’s details.

Qu v Property Partners Limited & Zhang (2015) in which Simon acted for a defendant who wished to sell his land. The plaintiff had obtained an ex parte interim injunction preventing the defendant from selling alleging an interest in the land arising from a contract. Simon persuaded the court that the contract did not give the plaintiff an arguable interest in the land and the injunction was discharged.

Sunnyvale Property Trust Limited v Liu (2015) in which Simon acted for the second defendant in bringing a successful application for defendant’s summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim. The case involved some difficult issues relating to the law of agency as the second defendant had signed the agreement but on behalf of the first defendant only. The court accepted Simon’s argument that the second defendant could not be liable in the circumstances of the case.

Singh v Singh (2016) in which Simon, instructed by the Director of Human Rights Proceedings, acted for a plaintiff employee who claimed that his employer had subjected him to racial harassment in breach of the Human Rights Act 1993. Following a 5 day trial in the Human Rights Review Tribunal, judgment was given in favour of the plaintiff and damages for emotional distress were awarded.

McLennan v Livaja (2016-2017) in which Simon acted for the successful respondents in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal. The applicant liquidators sought to sustain a caveat against the respondents’ land alleging knowing receipt of property obtained in breach of fiduciary duty. In dismissing the claims, the Court of Appeal clarified the law relating to the knowledge required for a cause of action in knowing receipt.

Simon acted for the Director Human Rights Proceedings in a successful claim that Cameron Slater breached the Privacy Act 1993 by uploading personal information onto his Whaleoil blog- Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Slater [2019] NZHRRT 13.

Diamond Laser Medispa Taupo Limited v Human Rights Review Tribunal [2019] NZHC 2809. Simon acted for Zelinda Doria who claimed she had been discriminated against by her employer on the basis of her pregnancy. The employer applied to the High Court for judicial review to have Ms Doria’s claim in the Tribunal dismissed claiming that the she should have brought a claim under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act rather than under the Human Rights Act. The High Court rejected the employer’s argument and held that Ms Doria’s claim could proceed.

In Zhang v Minister of Immigration [2020] NZHC 568 –,  Simon acted for the applicant who successfully applied for judicial review of the Associate Minister of Immigration’s refusal to grant her a residence visa.  The Court held that the Associate Minister had failed to have adequate regard to the mandatory relevant considerations of New Zealand’s international obligations and that the the Associate Minister’s decision was unreasonable in that it was not
supported by any evidence, is inconsistent with or contradictory of the evidence and the only reasonable conclusion contradicts the determination.